Public policy round-up: November 2018

Adverse publicity clauses in government contracts

Last month the Times reported that charities and companies working with Universal Credit claimants have been required to sign contracts including clauses pledging not to damage the reputation of (then) Work and Pensions Secretary Esther McVey.

These are different from the ‘anti-advocacy clauses’ in government grants, which have now been replaced by the grant standards.

The clauses require signatories to contracts to ‘pay the utmost regard to the standing and reputation’ of the Work and Pensions Secretary, adding that they must ‘not do anything which may attract adverse publicity’ to her, damage her reputation, or harm the public’s confidence in her.

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) stated that they are standard clauses and their purpose is to safeguard any commercial sensitive information for both government and the organisation involved. The charities named as signatories stated that the clauses do not affect their independence or their ability to speak out against Universal Credit.

However absolute clarity is important.

I want to make very clear that any charity, regardless of whether you are an NCVO member, should come to us for help and support if you are being stopped from campaigning or speaking up. Charities can campaign: and NCVO will stand alongside you if anyone tries to stop you.

NCVO wrote to the DWP asking for confirmation that it is not the intention of the clause to in any way prevent or deter charities or other providers from publicly expressing concerns about a particular policy, in this case the roll-out of Universal Credit. We also suggested that the DWP might consider how the original intention of the clause might best be achieved through a different form of words and whether the clause itself is necessary.

We received a response from the DWP which clearly states that:

the aim of the clauses is to ensure that contractors adhere to good working practices, not to stifle criticism.

the clauses do not stop any contract holders or affiliates from fairly criticising any specific Government department or Government policy. Nor do they prevent charities from campaigning for any particular cause with their own money.

Code of Conduct for Grant Recipients

The document is intended to provide high level expectations about the behaviour of grant recipients and sits alongside a supplier code of conduct. It builds on the existing grant standards to ensure that grants are administered and delivered effectively.

This guidance is helpful in driving up standards across the board, and there are also some particularly welcome statements about the duty of grant recipients to speak out when they have concerns about the grant:

Professional behaviour
10. We expect Grant Recipients to be prepared to invest in their relationships with government and establish trust with our staff and with other entities and organisations involved in the activities being funded. We also expect Grant Recipients to be able to speak out when government officials, civil servants or other Grant Recipients are not upholding the values embedded in the Civil Service Code or this code. We also expect Grant Recipients to speak out, without fear of consequences, when a grant funded project or activity is unlikely to succeed because of our behaviours or a lack of good governance. We expect the same behaviour when a grant is no longer fit for purpose, for example, in the grant agreement stipulations or measures.

The code also strengthens safeguarding standards in government grant arrangements, by requiring grant recipients to ensure that staff and volunteers ‘understand the boundaries of appropriate behaviour.’

The places that matter: How can we take control of the places and spaces that matter to us?

Belonging and identity: How can we rise above division and fear so that everyone can belong?

Reimagining work and purpose: How can we shape the future of work and find purpose inside work, or out?

How we organise: How can today’s movements, organisations and institutions transform and tomorrow’s emerge?

Given such broad scope, there are too many important messages in the report for me to try to summarise them but these messages that struck me the most.

Charities risk losing the trust of the public if they do not learn the lessons of recent mass movements such as #MeToo and #BlackLivesMatter and the Brexit vote, and listen to communities across the country.

The formal charity and voluntary sector is to renew itself by responding to the desire of people and communities for more power and control.

The solution suggested is that all who recognise themselves as involved in civil society commit to a PACT, which is build on the following values:

Power: A great power shift. CSF embraces all the cutting edge forms of participation here – citizens assembly, participatory grant-making

Accountability: Turning away from meaning accountable ‘primarily to funders’ to ‘primarily to people and communities’

Connection: No doubt the strongest category affected by Brexit. Urges civil society activists to return to this task of reducing tension and polarisation as their central task

Trust: Again, very much directed at the behaviour of the executives of voluntary and civil organisation who have betrayed the trust of those relying on them.

Kindness, emotions and human relationships – new report

The report argues that the great public policy challenges of our time demand an approach that is more centred on human relationships. With technology and artificial intelligence transforming the world at speed, emotional intelligence is equally important and needs investment.

For complaints received after 1 March 2019, the FR will name all organisations it investigates, whether the complaint is upheld or not. To date, the FR has mostly published anonymised summaries of investigations. This new naming policy will not be applied retrospectively and when the FR publishes its decisions, it will ‘recognise the organisations that have cooperated fully with our investigation and any actions they have taken to learn from the complaint, whether it is upheld or not.’

Like this? Read more

Elizabeth is head of policy and public services at NCVO. She has been part of the policy team since 2008, as the expert on charity law and regulation. Her policy interests also include charity campaigning, the sector’s independence, transparency, and accountability.